dedicated to restoring Atlantean Democracy

"Democracy" vs. "Atlantean Democracy"

the option to "opt out" of the enforcement of any given "new" law due to having voted AGAINST it or having abstained from voting FOR it is an essential Right in a truly "free and open society" such as envisioned by the POD as a utopian "Atlantean Democracy."

for example, under a condition where "taxation" applied ONLY to "voting citizens" who voted in FAVOR of paying them, or who had voted FOR the elected politician to whom they were being paid, then the gov't's revenues would be less and their authority to enforce their dictates domestically via increased funding for police forces would be diminished.

in a truly "free and open society," NOTHING is mandatory.

1 member likes this

Rating:

Currently 0/5 stars.
1
2
3
4
5

View Full Size

Tags:
Albums: Limbo

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on April 7, 2014 at 8:47pm: it would be a primary assertion of "Atlantean Democracy" in such a society that the rules and laws dictated by the group of "political officials" (the "chief executives" and the 23 member "Senate" inclusive) would (and only possibly ever COULD) apply to only their own members and those whom would voluntarily submit to their rule. The idea of a ruling by such an "Atlantean Democracy" having any bearing on any free citizen of such a society outside of the members of the government themselves would seem so patently absurd as to be considered an idea unworthy of consideration.

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on April 7, 2014 at 8:49pm: this would apply globally for all citizens under such a singular form of government in the same manner as, now, it applies intuitively to a citizen of any one given nation that the rules and laws of any other given nation do not apply to them as they are not citizens of that other nation.

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on April 7, 2014 at 11:38pm: as we have frequently seen recently occurring among the "boards of trustees" of property-owners of "private lands" advertised as being "public parks" relative to the homeless, tent-city based Occupy Wall St. movement, it should NOT be considered a moral possibility, yet is in our modern society a common reality, that one group of individuals may vote into law a dictate that harms by its enforcement another group of individuals who were excluded from being allowed to vote on such an issuance before it became an ordinance. The same holds true between nations such that, when the US Congress votes to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq "back to the stone age" from drone-planes, without the consent of the Afghani and Iraqi people, they can HARDLY claim to be doing so "for their own good" or to "liberate them" as they all-too-often anyway claim to be doing.

Comment